" so called experts who believe graphite can be analyzed with the same parameters of iron ore and coal"
I didn't get the impression Berry & Co were doing this.
I think the only reference he made to "other metals" was in the context of "
being able to sell all their product" and in that regard, I certainly agree. Sure, if a graphite company has a vast resource and has demonstrated it can sell the entire lot (via pay & take contracts, or ***real/no strings attached OTA's then economies of scale will come into the equation. If a company with a vast deposit and an annual planned production of say circa 200tpa is only able to sell 50tpa - that's a whole different ball game.
"
We believe that the economic studies are for naught because the value of the graphite companies comes not from asset size or production, but from being able to sell all the graphite. This is an absolutely crucial distinction and is true for other metals as well."
I wouldn't discount Berry as having no understanding of the graphite market - his area of expertise is in "energy metals", of which graphite is one.
But yes, all differing opinions, but also all worth taking on board and I found this one particularly interesting because he looks at the self same questions I have been asking.
*** real binding OTA's - you might want to refer to the ASIC v FMG on that issue and how investors should be aware that the words "contracts" and "agreements" probably don't mean much when it comes to dealing with Chinese SOE's and how enforceable they are
http://www.corrs.com.au/publication...st-succeed-in-high-court-appeal-against-asic/
identify the investor public
(20min delay)